HARVEY BUILDING, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
OCIE M. HALEY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a jury verdict awarding damages to a business invitee injured on the defendant's property. The court found no error in the trial court's refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant on the issue of actionable negligence.
No, the trial court did not err in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant on the issue of actionable negligence. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict.
“The primary thrust of appellant's appeal deals with the assertion that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant on the issue of actionable negligence.”
This quote identifies the main legal argument presented by the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOcie M. Haley, a business invitee, slipped and fell on premises owned by Harvey Building, Inc., sustaining personal injuries. Haley sued Harvey Buildi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Business Invitee cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant-appellant, Harvey Building, Inc., appeals from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury trial in favor of the plaintiff-appellee, Ocie M. Haley, for personal injuries incurred by the plaintiff in slipping and falling while a business invitee on premises owned by the defendant.
The primary thrust of appellant’s appeal deals with the assertion that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant on the issue of actionable negligence.
*351We affirm on the authority of Macrellis v. George, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 107; Ramsey v. Ivey, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 499; Budgen v. Brady, Fla.App.1958, 103 So.2d 672.
The other remaining points on appeal have been reviewed and determined to be without merit. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
CROSS and McCAIN, JJ., and DRIVER, B. J., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Budgen v. Brady, 103 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Ramsey v. Ivey, 184 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- MacRellis v. George, 202 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)